Since it was so important, we developed machines, more sensitive and accurate than humans, that could detect the green color of objects. So light would come in and the machine would report and answer “green”. Is the machine having a sensation or constructed perception of “green” to detect the color of “green” in order to report “green”? — Richard B
The leaf is green because it does not absorb the green wavelength. If it is not, what color is it? If you say there is no color, well OK feel free to define “what it really is” any way you like, maybe it will have some interesting utility for us. — Richard B
The naive/direct realist believes the perceiver is perceiving the tree exactly as it is, — schopenhauer1
The naive/direct realist believes the perceiver is perceiving the tree exactly as it is,
— schopenhauer1
Nuh. Direct realism is where what we talk about is the tree, not the image of the tree or some other philosophical supposition. — Banno
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. — Wiki
Direct realism’ (also known as ‘common sense realism’ or ‘naïve realism’) is the idea that our senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are. The ‘directness’ part of the claim captures well our common sense intuitions of direct perceptual access to the world. However, as the term suggests, ‘direct realism’ also makes the ‘realism’ claim, which is that the existence of the world of objects is not dependent upon it being perceived. — https://philosophynow.org/issues/146/Against_Direct_Realism
There's only 1 tree of course, but the point is the representation of the tree, the image on the retina, is, well, true (direct realism) or embellished (indirect realism). — Agent Smith
Is the brain perceiving the process, then? — NOS4A2
Which tree do we perceive? And who is perceiving that tree? — NOS4A2
For direct realism, the perceiver directly perceives the world, and thus we are able to distinguish between the perceiver and the things upon which he is directing this activity. For the indirect realist, the perceiver directly perceives sense data, ideas, impressions, representations, models, sensations—internal flora and fauna indistinguishable from the perceiver himself—leaving us no distinction between perceiver and perceived. So it’s like saying we perceive perceptions, we see seeings, or we feel feelings. In order to answer the question of what we are directly perceiving, one must posit something that is not the perceiver to find it. Since indirect realism is unable to do so, indirect realism is redundant. — NOS4A2
Direct realism I would say is about knowledge of the world, not mechanism of the knowledge. The mechanism is agnostic — schopenhauer1
I agree that in one sense the Direct Realist is looking at a tree in the world , not at the sense data in the mind. They are "looking through" the sense data to the tree on the other side of it, as one looks through a window to the world outside.
However, if someone somehow removed the sense data from the brain of the Direct Realist, they wouldn't be able to see the tree.
In another sense, the Direct Realist is directly looking at something that is at the same time both sense data and a tree. This could be part of the argument against Direct Realism, in that the Direct Realist is perceiving something which is in fact sense data although they think it is a tree, ie, a psychological illusion. — RussellA
The brain is a conglomeration of processes which, working together is the perceiving.
All that picture does is demonstrate the mechanics of human vision, from which the answer to that question is impossible, insofar as both forms of realism must accept that physiology.
Remove the word “tree”, then ask where and when the warrant for putting anything in its place, comes from.
Now let the games begin.
How do physical properties obtain without a perceiver? — schopenhauer1
What is an event without an perceiver? — schopenhauer1
Is it space-time that becomes the placeholder for the event to obtain? — schopenhauer1
But there are more organs and more biology involved in perceiving. — NOS4A2
I think the beetle/box language game thing can be parked, but I guess you are saying that although humans 'create' green - it is not out there in reality - what is out there in reality is a particular light frequency that we experience as green. This can be objectively tabulated as a quality of the external world — Tom Storm
Yep, sure are. And by me adding this to the equation, what exactly would that be adding to the problem? We already have X brain and sensory components I mentioned, add more, and what changes? We already have various filters I have mentioned.
Although there may be particular instantiations of the property squund in the world, an instantiation of a property is not a property. — RussellA
What is an event without an perceiver?
— schopenhauer1
Unperceived. — RussellA
There's nothing else apart from space-time that could be a placeholder. — RussellA
Everything standing in the way of our direct perception disappears. There is nothing between perceiver and perceived. — NOS4A2
the brain is viewing a configured tree — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.